Kim Davis, county clerk in Kentucky, has made headlines with her refusal to issue marriage licenses to both gay and straight couples applying for marriage licenses. I was surprised to learn that (1) she is a democrat (I’ll bet she has more republican supporters and Democratic haters than any other person in America), and (2), even the Westboro Baptist Church is protesting her! Noting that she has been married 4 times to 3 different men, the WBC calls her an oath breaker and adulterer, stating “Proud adulterers who divorce/remarry and refuse to call it a sin are no more a WBC member than a proud fag.”
Well, she is a recent convert to Pentecostalism. She experienced a “religious awakening” in 2011, following her mother-in-law’s “dying wish” that she attend church.[54] Davis has held Bible study for inmates of the Rowan County jail.[54] and calls herself an “Apostolic Christian”[7] who worships three times a week[53] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead, Kentucky.
I’ve been wondering why she hasn’t been fired yet. Since it is an elected office, the only way to remove her from office is via impeachment, and she is setting herself up to be impeached. From Wikipedia,
Davis continued to deny the licenses, saying she was acting “under God’s authority”. On September 3, 2015, she was jailed for contempt of court.[10][11] After deputy clerks began issuing marriage licenses in her absence, she, through her attorneys, stated that any marriage licenses not bearing her signature were invalid,[12] while Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins dismissed her argument.[13]Attorney General of Kentucky Jack Conway is currently considering whether a special prosecutor should pursue potential charges of official misconduct against her.[14]
…
The Rowan County Attorney’s Office said it has referred to the Attorney General of KentuckyJack Conway‘s office a charge of official misconduct against Davis.[47] The decision of whether to file charges is up to the Attorney General Conway.[48]
Seemingly this would set in process impeachment proceedings, though I have no idea if state legislators in Kentucky would support impeachment and removal from office for her beligerence. We often make fun of wacky Mormons–at least this is a wacky Pentecostal. What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m confused. I thought she was only refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but you’re saying she refused to issue licenses to gay and straight couples?
My thoughts? She doesn’t impress me.
I’m just surprised it’s an elected office. Were it regular employment, she would have been fired (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9870468/Gay-marriage-no-opt-out-for-Christian-registrars.html). Here it is the registrars who deal with both the liscensing and the marriage.
(LDS weddings held in a chapel have to have a registrar present. Usually a member or two train as registrars, and although not necessarily employed by the local authority as such are then legally able to act as such for LDS weddings, permission for the marriage first being granted by license or posting banns by the local registry office.)
Some people in our Ward are heralding her as the poster child for all that is wrong with legalising same sex marriage.
Of all the problems in the world, one person gets locked up and satan is running rampant.
What about all the terrible atrocities in Syria, refugees dying in the Mediterranean, terrorism and all the rest.
I honestly wish we would focus as a church on issues that actually matter.
Frankly Kim Davis, I don’t give a damn.
“I honestly wish we would focus as a church on issues that actually matter.”
Perhaps should read:
“I honestly wish some people would focus on issues that actually matter.”
I think the Church does focus on issues that matter.
She is following her concience and I respect that. Of course she should be empeached because this is Babylon not Zion. But I believe God honors those who make sacrifices for His sake in good conscience, even if they might be a bit crazy.
My prediction is that the Kentucky legislature will change their rules so that clerks’ names don’t appear on certificates, the deputy clerks will issue marriage certificates to gay couples, and Kim Davis will be released from prison and return to her job. She may or may not be re-elected. But in a generation, people will scratch their heads at the idea that when gay marriage became legal, there were some government bureaucrats who were unwilling to issue marriage licenses, just like we scratch our heads at people who once opposed interracial marriage.
Yes Dexter, because she doesn’t want to discriminate, she is not issuing marriage licenses period. The lawsuit to hold her in contempt of court was made by 2 straight couples and 2 gay couples.
She has this beam in her eye and as a result does not see clearly and thinks she is seeing motes in others. This is a case of bigotry masquerading as religious freedom. If her religion told her Mormons could not get married, we would be outraged. She has a responsibility to uphold the law of the land.
Am I wrong to suspect that those chanting the “12th Article of Faith” mantra on immigration are willing to overlook it in this case?
hoffbegone: “I think the Church does focus on issues that matter.”
Really? Guys having to be clean-shaven? Youth with two many earrings? And how about patterned tights? https://youtu.be/QxSHQ2qk86k
She’s the equivalent of a waitress refusing to sell me a cheeseburger because she’s on a diet. Her job is to distribute marriage licenses to those who are legally-permitted to obtain them — her feelings on the matter are not more relevant. And then the fact that she’s refusing to issue marriage licenses altogether?? That’s like refusing to take a customer’s order at all because you’re on a diet. That’s her job, that’s what they’re paying her for — if she can’t do it, then she should get a different job.
I agree with Mike (#9):
which reminds me of the woman who quoted Leviticus to a city councilman, took out a rock, and then said: “I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case your Bible talk isn’t just a smoke screen for personal prejudices.”
Kim Davis is a good example of religious privilege playing the victim and claiming to be religious rights or freedoms. If she wants to live her religion in the way she has described, she needs to change jobs. It is not up to a secular government to allow her to impose her religion on others. Religion has no place in government job. Her freedom of religion extends to her own life and religious practice. The moment she seeks to impose her beliefs on others, that is claiming religious privilege, and that is NOT her right. Freedom OF religion also inherently includes freedom FROM religion – from the religions of others, and from religion at all. Kim Davis was using her religion to deny the civil rights of others and that is not okay.
John Kasich, governor of Ohio, said yesterday, “When we see these kind of battles going on, I get a little bit afraid that it turns people off to the idea of faith in God,” he said. “I think we need to talk a lot about the do’s, about humility, about helping our neighbor, about the need to live a life bigger than ourselves.”
I don’t know anything about Kasich but religion makes sense to me when I hear things like this. When religionists are more concerned about being right that being good people their message is meaningless.
I haven’t understood her methods. If she is really so opposed to this she should resign in protest and then start a campaign or lawsuit to have the law changed. Refusing to do this is just the wrong fight in the wrong place. I’m not sure if its exactly the same, but I used to work as a night clerk at a hotel. Part of my job was making the coffee in the morning. Of course as a Mormon I was personally opposed to it, but I didn’t feel like I was supporting sin or betraying my religion by making the coffee every morning. If I was offended by making the coffee I would have found another employee to do it or found another job.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=489897561170264&set=a.106880852805272.15191.100004500733693&type=1 kind of captures it, all in all. 😉
Doesn’t Deuteronomy also say:
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Did she refuse herself a marriage license? Or refuse a birth certificate for the boys she had out of wedlock?
There’s no logic or consistency to the way she wields the law. It’s bigotry pure and simple. Meanwhile, she</I. does not issue the license. She acts as an agent for the county and when she abuses the authority of the county to bend to her religious views she is violating the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the terms of her oath of office.
From my perspective she seems like a wacko, not just a hypocrite and bigot. But if they aren’t recalling her, apparently some quantity of her constituents agree with her. That’s the thing about democracy. We get what we ask for.
[I am mystified why this entry comes up on one of my computers but not the other one and I apologize for questioning on another thread but that aside,] I think Kim Davis is getting certifiably TERRIBLE counsel from her attorneys. As I understand it they are from Jerry Fallwell’s Liberty University and are, clearly, pushing an agenda that’s their own. I doubt any other attorney in the US would refuse to recognize the primacy of the US Supreme Court or a judge’s authority to a contempt ruling when his orders were flatly refused.
When this is all over there should be whatever charges are available brought against her legal team so that no one frivolously puts the entire country through this again.
Conservative religious zealots could’ve picked a better poster child. I would ask multiple-times-divorced
Kim Davis what the bible says about divorce, adultery and why she allows divorced and adulterous people to remarry?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-flight-attendant-says-shes-suspended-for-not-serving-alcohol_55ed9963e4b002d5c07652c2
It is a free country. She is allowed to practice her religion, stand up for her beliefs, fulfill her job as she best sees it.
It sounds like they are holding her in contempt and if they have to will impeach her out of office.
The system is working as it should. People have freedom. And the system won’t let them abuse others or go against the laws just because they hold office.
She is wrong to do this and she will pay for it.
If she discriminated to just gay couples, she could get sued. At least she is being irresponsible to everyone, and will just get fired.
I agree with Alice — I believe Ms. Davis’s attorneys are pushing their own agenda and are committing malpractice.
I disagree with her and I think she is wrong.
But I do think that her actions are a valid form of civil disobedience. It is valid in the sense that it does not cause direct harm to people and it communicates her message. As with most civil disobedience, any laws broken may result in appropriate penalties. Since she cannot be fired and impeachment is politically infeasible, the jail confinement seems appropriate. And as with many civil disobedience actions, bystanders and third parties are inconvenienced, which is unfortunate.
I would prefer for her to resign, but that wouldn’t serve her purpose in communicating her message.
rockwell, i agree with you. And while it is inconvenient for her to be acting wrongly, which is a bummer, it will get corrected in time.
Again, that is not right…but it will get corrected.
Mormons have acted in civil disobedience before when they felt it was more important to live God’s law and violate the 12th Article of Faith.
She’ll make her statement. She’ll lose. Marriages will go forward. Some people will respect her for following her conscience, and most will forget her.
She is not playing with a full deck, it says something about the voters that voted her in; thus, any replacement wouldn’t be much better in my opinion.
It does reveal a problem, however, when judges play the role of legislatures. 5 people shouldn’t be making decisions of this magnititude, especially when even deep blue states like California shot down same sex marriage.
Hoff – thanks for offering to rewrite my comment, but my original words will do just fine, thanks.
The best example I can think of is the Church’s organisational endorsement in the California Prop 8 situation. Now the Church’s almost singular narrative against same sex marriage. I don’t hear very much commentary on prescription medication abuse, domestic violence, sex slavery, terrorism, mental health, drug abuse – some, but not much. All of those things above will have far greater negativ effects on families than SSM ever will…
I have mixed feelings. I don’t agree with her, and I don’t think she should have a job she is refusing to perform a central duty of.
However, I have some sympathy. Some years ago I read about a nurse required by her hospital to assist with an abortion or be fired. My husband is in the medical field, and he is one who would believe he was going to hell if he performed an abortion. The potential anguish he would suffer would far exceed any of the patient’s at being referred to another person. However unlikely that circumstance is, the mere possibility of it has made me uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people to violate their conscience. Where do you draw the line?
The problem with this particular situation is that there has to be accomodation. There are deputy clerks in the office willing to issue the marriage licenses–but apparently all licenses require Kim Davis’ signature. She therefore is no longer qualified to serve in the position.
There may even be competing religious beliefs in society so which religion is granted consideration?
While I appreciate her steadfastness insofar as her beliefs are concerned – the proper course of action as a duly elected official (which in KY she is, a merely ‘hireling’, or more properly, civil servant, could simply be dismissed for refusal to discharge her lawful duties) would have been to resign her office rather than issue marriages licenses for ‘marriages’ which conflict with HER values (and traditional values and long-standing English common law, but that’s not germane to this discussion). By in effect holding the marriages hostage as an elected official, she is acting in defiance of the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Any judge would be acting properly to jail her for contempt, and regardless of how I feel about marriage (my views are obvious and well-known), were I in the KY legislature I wouldn’t hesitate to impeach her and remove her from office.
#12 – Justin, there’s is but ONE difference, but it’s huge. If someone who’s ‘found religion’ with regards to diet refuses to serve you a cheeseburger, you can ALWAYS get up, leave the table, and find another restaurant that will serve you a cheeseburger, under conditions and pricing to mutual agreement.
Since, for whatever reasons (good, bad, or indifferent), the Commonwealth of Kentucky has mandated that all marriages be duly registered in each county (e.g., the citizens of said Commonwealth must get its permission, e.g., get a LICESNCE, like owning a pet, and make it legal fact and public record), the residents of the County Ms. Davis officiates in (Rowan) can’t just shop another registrar if they don’t get appropriate service from her. Hence, why, in spite of her convictions, she is acting in an unlawful manner, and should be quickly removed from office. Whether she seems silly to you or I is irrelevant.
I’d like to make a clarification here. A lot of people seem to be confusing “religious accommodation” with “religious exemption”. A religious accommodation allows for a change in practices or procedures in order to allow an individual to comply with their own religious practices or beliefs and continue to perform the duties or expectations associated with their position. A religious accommodation does not exempt someone from their duties. An example would be allowing a religious article of clothing to be worn which would otherwise be excluded by an established dress code. A religious exemption, however, allows for a change or cancellation of duties or expectations which conflict with one’s religious practices or beliefs. In the case of government employment, whether it be an elected or hired position, religious accommodations are often granted when requested but the individual must continue to perform the duties of their position. Religious exemptions of duties are rarely if ever granted. Kim Davis is not seeking a religious accommodation; she’s seeking a religious exemption which isn’t going to happen. As long as she is the county clerk, she is legally responsible to issue marriage licenses to anyone who is eligible to receive one. If she does not wish to do that, she must resign her position.
She’s been freed by the judge who charged her with contempt. He has also ordered that she not interfere with the operation of other clerks issuing the licenses that offend her. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Douglas #31 notes the real issue. Kim Davis is an easy case. She took an oath to uphold the state and federal law. She’s a goner, easy impeachment or charge with malfeasance. However, the market place type of “religious conviction” will be more interesting. Should the baker have to bake the wedding cake when there are other bakers who will do so? Can’t a person get on Youtube and learn how to bake their own wedding cake? What would be considered services so essential there should be legal mandate for the service or product as opposed to things non-essential? Interesting days lay ahead.
The next issue is people like her attorneys, ex-Gov. Hucakbee and Sen. Cruz who know better and, in the case of Hackabee and Cruz, have taken the same oath to uphold the US Constitution, who are agitating for lawlessness. They are provoking simple people, raising their doomed expectations (marriage equality isn’t going anywhere). These demagogues are playing with dynamite and they’re doing it knowingly.
Huckabee is the most pathetic of all saying he should go to jail in Davis’ place if someone needs to be jailed as though, as a former chief executive, he doesn’t know full well what an empty slogan that is. If he gets a couple more polling points or adds a zero to his speaking fee (that’s what he’s selling his soul for) he’ll still will never get to double digits and his days in national politics are over.
1. I read she was jailed without bail. Even some violent criminals, drug dealers, murderers get bail.
2. A compromise could be worked out.
3. She could be transferred to another position, then have an election to fill her post.
Why is it alright for some people in elected offices to defy law but not others, at any level of government……very much a double standard in this country. All levels of government pick and choose which laws to obey, to enforce, to break, and the apathetic citizens don’t care until it is something that matters to them specifically.
When someone does something that defies what you believe in it is wrong. When someone does something that defies what you are against then it is right.
Compromise and civility and respect, which made this a great nation, are extinct.
#6. huh? If people follow their conscience to do bad things, I don’t respect that.
People have committed all manner of atrocities while following their conscience.
@EG
Bail is not applicable here. Bail is used to ensure a defendant will appear at trial. Davis is not going to trial. She was being held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order. No trial, no bail.
In no way was her actions justified.
I just hope that given this was the Eastern District Court of Kentucky, that Raylan Givens was the one who took her into custody.
A thoughtful article in Deseret News seems to think that Davis is not justified: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865636354/No-church-stamped-permission-slips-for-abusing-societal-rule-of-law.html?pg=all
I see that a couple of the usual political hacks have glommed on to her in an effort to get publicity and garner votes from the right wing religious wackos. Not impressed.
When the lawyers are interviewed on TV they really say nothing. She is clearly violating the law and needs to be accountable to the people, not her convictions.
Nate #6 (“She is following her concience and I respect that”): I don’t automatically give people a pass for following their consciences. I suspect that the people who unleashed the dogs and fire hoses on the civil rights marchers, or less violently, who turned black people away from whites-only drinking fountains and restrooms (and, yes, LDS temples) were also only following their consciences, but their actions were deplorable and eventually illegal.
If she really can’t support the law and just do her job, the honorable course is to resign, not to obstruct. The only honest thing she’s done has been her willingness to go to jail (although, apparently, not to stay there). If you’re going to buck the law, you should at least be willing to pay the piper.
I don’t think she should have gone to jail, fining her would have been best. She should have sought for an exception to granting the licenses and making someone else could in her place (or resign). Stopping the issuing of all licenses was clearly obstructing the law.
I actually agreed with Nate Oman on this one, as long as she was acting as an agent for the state she can’t act on religious principles; if she’s acting as an agent for herself and making sure the state still keeps the law (recusing herself) all would be well.
Oh goody! Now an armed vigilante group has appointed itself keep Davis from going back to jail should she defy the court order and start refusing licenses again. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-oath-keepers
Spokesman for Oath Keepers, Steward Rhodes, has said the Rowan County sheriff should have blocked U.S. Marshals from detaining Davis, but since neither the sheriff nor the state’s governor will do their “job” and “intercede” on behalf of Davis, the Oath Keepers will have to do it instead. “As far as we’re concerned, this is not over and this judge {Bunning who jailed Davis on contempt charges] needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to. If the sheriff, who should be interceding, is not going to do his job and the governor is not going to do the governor’s job of interceding, then we’ll do it.” http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-send-armed-guards-protect-kim-davis-us-marshals
Kim Davis has wisely decided not to up the tensions in KY. She has declined the offer of the Oath Keepers. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kim-davis-declines-oath-keepers-offer-armed-guard
I hope they impeach her, but I’m not holding my breath. If she’s not willing to put her name on the marriage certificate, why won’t she simply resign over her “deeply held religious beliefs”? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-says-she-wont-stop-deputies-marriage-n426836